Civilian Chief Fire Officer takes command.

[fireftrm]

Strategic decision making is part of a strategic manager's day-to-day work and this would be part of normal development. The operation of Gold command is just like that that any business would put in place in an emergency - example a strike, a fire that has put the factory out of commission, a major flooding incident (been to such meetings as a FRS rep with only three Emergency Service personnel out of 20 at the meeting - they other managed rather well), a sudden failure of equipment (maybe a production line), a major financial problem.....the list is potentially endless. All of these require the same skill level and is taught/developed over the career of the manager. There are modules to assist such a person to understand the operational aspects, but there are alos operational personnel to advise.

Do you think that the emergency meetings at any of the above REQUIRED the managers to understnad the operational task, or could they cope with providing strategic support by utilising the knowldege and skills of their subordinates? The answer is in the way everyone else manages.

As it clearly doesn't take a few days to gain this skill then no person could walk in 'off the street' without already being a highly skilled strategic manager, I rather think that answers the pijtnb you were trying to score on the firefighter role.

As to the three Qs -
No1 - I thought you had, I can't see choice mentioned by anyone else, but am happy that you seem not to think there can be a choice - as there isn't nor has anyone suggested that modernisation is about offering the customer a choice, after all there is only one FRS still and no sign of alternatives!
No2 - Well, despite the wordings in your other posts, that you WERE a senior manager should still raise the same question. Gold command has never been different, however we did have CFOs/DCFOs/ACFOs still taking OPERATIONAL command. All that has changed is that the fire service standards now make clear that this is not their role, as it should not have been.
Q3 - The role is as it was, just clarified. Senior managers, from whatever organisation should understand the development routes that senior managers require, or can access. They should laso be able to find out such information should they not have it to hand, that you hadn't/couldn't is what I found mildly surprising. Out of interest the FSC is one, there are so many others. The only difference as it stands is the FSC is no longer THE way for the FRS.

[buffalosid]

john doe
75% of staff not at work???

no one in ANY job that works a set 42 hour week could possibly be at work for more than 25% of the week as all weeks consist of 168 hours.
its simple math.


i think you need to jump off the bandwagon , switch on and try and think about the junk you are spouting.
you are simply embaressing yourself.

[ian gough]

He still hasn't answered my question.

[fireftrm]

Johndoe wanted some industries where 75% of the staff are not at work at any given time, well these (obvioulsy) need to be 24 hour operational businesses, so here are just a few:

Tesco
Asda
Sainsbury
The ambulance service
The Police
The Army (actually they have less than 25% on operational duty at any given time)
The RAF (ditto)
The RN (ditto)
Railway companies
Road haulage companies
Power stations
Transco/National Grid
AA
RAC
Green Flag
The media (BBC, ITV, Sky, Newspapers etc)
Corus
24hr telephone call centres
24hr petrol stations
Hospitals
Hotels


I am getting bored now, however he should note that, as buff says,, any industry that works 24hr must have enough staff to cover the shifts. As he says we are in a rather efficient mould in the FRS as we utilise considerably more than 33% of our staff at any given time to operate a 24hr 365 day business. We have some shift staff (25% utilisation - well above the 22.26% average for 24hr businesses anyway as we work 4.6hrs more than the national average week of 37.4hrs), we have around 33% of our staff on a virtual 24hr 365day working (retained), about 6% on 78hr week (flexi-duty) and the same on an average of 84hr week (day crewing). So hopefully that answers your rather ill thought out question?

[johndoe]

john doe
75% of staff not at work???

no one in ANY job that works a set 42 hour week could possibly be at work for more than 25% of the week as all weeks consist of 168 hours.
its simple math.


i think you need to jump off the bandwagon , switch on and try and think about the junk you are spouting.
you are simply embaressing yourself.

I dont think I am "embaressing" maths is good but spelling not so good.
I think people ae missing my point and I must say I am only thinking of  whole time. i feel they could be used better.
24 hr coverage whole time is not always needed.
I also think that they could make more of down time.
in other words increase in employees during the day (not all will ride an engine" reduce at other times to maintain cover.
I must also say that most of the occupations that were quoted do not have 75% off but flexible working patterns which is what I am advocating and I must stress not reduction in Fire cover.

[dave bev]

johndoe, ok, now youve clarified your reference to 75% as only applying to whole time. can you further clarify WHICH whole time please? day crewing for instance are availabel for 50% of a week!

your thoughts on 'they could be used better' would be interesting

24 hour coverage is not always needed. the difficulty being of course when they are. are you confident enough to bet you career (assuming you are employed somewhere?) on it? always recognising of course that the other part of the gamble may be someones life!

interesting about not all riding an 'engine' during the day. i assume (though perhaps wrongl) that under your suggestions that all appliances will be crewed to the correct levels, none of this 75% of the time malarky. the rest will then do what? cfs, interesting. how do they get to where they want to go or are needed? ask a few fpo's how they manage to cope with no transport.

the reality is that the fire service is no different than any other organisations. its what we do that is different!  

your final point re flexible work patterns is a bit 'cliched' but then again its no more than i would expect, but you do at least now appear to being a little more conscience of bigger pictures that may result from your 'thoughts'

dave bev

[fireftrm]

Thanks Dave - I had thought of replying but had lost the will, you have reinvigorated me.

Out of interest johndoe is right about some of those organisations not having 75% off - they do this by having the ability to accurately forecast demand and by having more poeple during the day doing bureaucratic work. Thus they often have in excess of 75% off.

jd - the requirement to have appliances crewed at night stems from the fact that fires are not diurnal, indeed fire deaths are predominantly nocturnal. Yes slightly lower incident numbers, but more serious. We already deal with this by having non-operational tasks done during the day and having less staff on duty at night, only whole-time shift personnel are 'at work'. Retained, day crewing and flexi duty system personnel all respond from home, thus avoiding any of that wasted 'down time'.

[johndoe]

Out of interest doughboy
Doey eyed - .

I fail to see why you have to get so personal on a debate that I have found quite interesting you have opened my eyes to certain stuff I was not aware of never sais I was right, just an opinion you obviously have a better outlook/knowledge than me
and I have learnt things is that not what this forum is about.
If its just to throw insults no wonder certain people have in excess of 800 posts.

[fireftrm]

I apologise most sincerely - I just had read a certian negativity toward the FRS in your posts, as I misinterpreted that I can only withdraw my comments, which I have done by removing them. Again I apologise.

[ian gough]

well said johndoe. I ask sincere questions too, as none of us can know it all!

[Chris Houston]

Chris,

To answer your qustion: yes they do - and have done for many years (my brigade even did that over 10 years ago - before 'modernisation' was even considered by any politicians etc).

My County also carries out a survey of 'customer satisfaction', by asking residents about council services. The fire & rescue service always, without fail, come top! Can your company claim such satisfaction with it's service?

Also, most (if not all) brigades monitor 'complaints' - which, as I said, are usually about fire safety officers. I know this because I was responsible for helping draft my County Council's 'complaints' procedure and I had to monitor & report each year on it. So we don't disagree there. (I also know of more cases than the one you are probably thinking of re: litigation, however, hardly evidence of a badly managed service).

Regarding your last point: I have known and even worked alongside many "private fire brigades" (indeed, my father served in one) - all except one: Albright & Wilson Ltd, have beeen disbanded because of costs and/or difficulties in managing and/or supervising them. These companies, no doubt with some good managers themselves, opting to rely upon the services of the local authority fire service which they paid for in their rates.

Finally, the average council tax payer in my county pays less than the price of a loaf of bread each week for their fire and rescue service. None of this money goes to shareholders dividends.

I've never objected to criticism - and I think my earlier comments are quite fair.

Ian, I think we are quite far from disagreeing.  I just don't think you can easily compare profit making companies and FRSs.

I also think its not very relevant to ask householders to compare them with council services.  The most realistic way to measure customer satisfaction (I think) would be to seek objective feedback from those who have suffered fire losses, householders, businesses and insurance companies, and to seek opinions from informed tax payers comparing fire fighting against other countries.

I think the only fair comparison would be to compare FRS with each other and with ones from different countries.

[dave bev]

john doe, the purpose of this forum - im not so sure myself sometimes! it does give the opportunity for discussion and debate, but in doing so it gives the opportunity for offending contributors, sometimes unknowingly so!

im glad you have learned something from the responses to your comments/views - but much as i suggested questioning others you must also question any answers you receive on here until you have enough information to take a better informed position (which might still be your original view!!)

some of us might have 'more information' as opposed to being 'better informed' - as im sure you are aware 'knowing stuff' in the frs is the basis of many a promotion! it doesnt make those with the info more intelligent - even those with 800+ posts!



chris    -      

compare, consult, challenge and compete - now that takes me back a few years!

[ian gough]

Chris,

I detect a certain shifting of goal posts here!

My posting which you responded to was an attempt to inform johndoe that I've personally stood before 'customers' and not had the criticism levelled at the fire service that he inferred. These people were not shrinking violets and well able to air their professional views. I've never said the fire service is perfect (what organisation is?) and I'm well aware of weaknesses.

I then answered your criticism of a lack of consultation. At least my brigade clearly consulted with it's customers. However, I accept not all customers and maybe not 'customers who really knew what they were talking about' - which I guess is what you're now saying. Incidentally, these things are not cheap to carry out and there comes a point when a decision must be made about just how far these surveys go.

Finally, fire & rescue services are (or at least until recently) were compared with each other. And as I sit on the 'fire stats user group' I could spend the rest of the day explaining how your final point re comparing with foreign services is just impossible (mainly because 'they' don't compile anywhere near the level of fire statistics that we do in the UK).

PS there are lots of areas where the service could do better, however, surely we should try to get a fair perspective on this topic - and not simply bash management.

[Chris Houston]

PS there are lots of areas where the service could do better, however, surely we should try to get a fair perspective on this topic - and not simply bash management.

Firstly, I hope I've not said anything controversial or offensive to anyone.  I'm just saying that it's unfair to compare FRS to businesses, we appear to be agreeing on that.

I wasn't bashing management, I wouldn't consider myself qualified to even attempt to, I just pointed out that some people are unhappy with certain aspects of FRS activities, that's all.